Jake Lahne’s Profile
Recent Comments
The Food Lab: A New Way to Cook Pasta?
I think the system ate my previous attempt at making this point, so I'll try again (and hope it doesn't reappear later and make me redundant),
"Since a burner puts out energy at a fixed rate, your pot will return to boiling temperature (212°F) at the same rate no matter how much water you have. Indeed, since a large pot of water has greater surface area (and thus more places for it to lose energy to the outside environment), it may actually take longer to bring a large pot of water back to a boil."
How can this be right? Specific heat capacity is governed by mass (its units are J/kg*K, i.e. energy/(mass*temperature change), and so the difference in times is explained by the difference in the masses of water. A pot with more water boils more slowly because it has more water in it. While heat loss through evaporation may play a role, the mass of water itself is very important.
This comment has nothing to do with your conclusions - pasta with less water sounds good to me.
The Food Lab: A New Way to Cook Pasta?
"Since a burner puts out energy at a fixed rate, your pot will return to boiling temperature (212°F) at the same rate no matter how much water you have."
Can this possibly be right? Physics has always been my worst subject, but I believe that we calculate the change of temperature of a body by using the specific heat capacity of that substance, which is dependent on mass - its units are J/(kg*K), that is, amount of energy in joules required to raise a mass in kilograms by a number of degrees in Kelvin. Thus, since your burner is putting out energy at a fixed rate, shouldn't it take longer to heat the pot with twice the mass of water (i.e., the 6 quart pot)?
I think a better explanation is that, while the smaller pot may lose more heat energy to the cold pasta, it will return more quickly to boil precisely because it has less water in it. Or am I getting my physics terribly wrong?
Gadgets: Fine Edge Pro Knives by J.A. Henckels
It's worth noting that at least the more expensive Henckels knives include a bolster: the thickened metal section where the blade meets the handle. Ostensibly, the bolster provides stability and protection from hand-slippage. Practically, as someone who has cooked intensively for years, both professionally and not, I can say that the bolster really makes no difference, except in one critical area: if you make serious use of your knife, and thus sharpen it frequently, the inability to remove metal near the bolster while sharpening will eventually cause the curve of the knife to reverse itself, so that the knife can no longer make smooth, rocking cuts. At this point the knife becomes worthless.
The bolster is often created in the forging process, and so is absent from many stamped knives (including the Global line - my personal favorites - and the Forschner knives, which are consistently well-reviewed and cheap as hell). If the cheaper Henckels knives lack the bolster because of the stamping process, they are probably a better buy; the steel used in the more expensive Henckels is fairly soft anyway, so their edge retention is not great, although, on the flip side, the soft steel makes putting an edge back on that much easier.
See more comments by Jake Lahne »
Recent Posts
See more posts by Jake Lahne »
Recent Favorites
Jake Lahne hasn't favorited a post yet.
Recent Polls
Jake Lahne answered "No" to Do you put noodles in your matzoh ball soup?
Recent Quizzes
Jake Lahne got 33% correct on How Much Do You Know About Condiments?
See more polls and quizzes by Jake Lahne »
About Jake Lahne
Website: http://drinksnob.wordpress.com
Location:
About:
Favorite foods:
Last bite on earth:

'S actually a giant plant related to carrots, fennel, and parsnips, which, while it can grow quite tall, is not a tree. According to Harold McGee, it's harvested by scarring the top of the tap-root, which can survive for many years with this treatment.